Planning Commission Minutes - 10/23/2024 (Jt Workshop)MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 23, 2024 — 5:00 PM
Monticello Community Center
Planning Commissioners Present Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner,
Planning Commissioners Absent:
City Councilmembers Present:
City Councilmembers Absent:
Staff:
1. Call to Order
Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark
Charlotte Gabler, Sam Murdoff, Tracy Hinz, Lee Martie
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart
Angela Schumann, Tyler Bevier, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve
Grittman — Grittman Consulting, Jack Brooksbank —
Campbell Knutson
Chair Paul Konsor called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Discussion on draft amendments to City Code (Various Chapters and Sections), as
related to the regulation of Cannabis businesses.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann began with an overview of the
workshop and welcomed Jack Brooksbank from the City Attorney's office. Introductions
were given from the City Council members and Planning Commission members.
Angela Schumann explained the workshop would focus on the zoning ordinance,
including general regulations and specific -use regulations for cannabis business,
proposed locations for allowing cannabis use, distance buffer between uses allowed by
statute. She reminded policymakers that no formal action would be made, only
discussion for development of the ordinance.
Angela Schumann first explained the intention to present a draft retail registration
ordinance and its location in the business regulations portion of the City Code. The
business registration ordinance will outline the process for registering certain types of
cannabis businesses, and reminded policymakers of the 16 different types of licenses.
She noted that Monticello had delegated registration to Wright County via the Joint -
Powers Agreement (JPA). Local jurisdictions can issue retail registration for a subset of
the 16 types of cannabis businesses, including cannabis micro -businesses and cannabis
mezzo -businesses with a retail endorsements, cannabis retailers and cannabis medical
retailers. Angela Schumann reminded policymakers that Wright County is electing to not
register low -potency hemp retail, as they are an existing business, yet it will fall under
Statute 342.
Angela Schumann reminded the policymakers the registration will require a crosscheck.
The local jurisdiction will verify maximum number of registrations, zoning requirements
and compliance with proposed buffers. Although the registration process has been
delegated to Wright County, the City will need to adopt an ordinance for retail
registration that includes Monticello's registration cap, the delegation to Wright County,
and the required buffers.
Chair Paul Konsor asked about the license types and if the hemp -related and medical
related licenss count towards the registration count. City Attorney representative Jack
Brooksbank stated that the hemp retailers would still need to register, yet would not
count to the two retailer requirement by statute based on Monticello's population. He
explained that the registration pertains to recreational retail cannabis including
cannabis microbusinesses, cannabis mezzobusinesses, and retailers. Only those types of
registrations count towards the two minimum registrations for Monticello.
Angela Schumann reminded the policymakers that staff has acknowledged that this is a
starting point and that the adopted ordinances are likely to change as the environment
shifts, data is collected and any state law changes.
City Planner Steve Grittman began with the zoning discussion noting that an ordinance
cannot prohibit the 16 license types, but the City retains the zoning authority by statute
to regulate for where the license types can locate and the land use performance
standards. For purposes of discussion, staff would suggest that retail cannabis facilities
are grouped into B-3, B-4 business districts, with the industrial cannabis business
grouping in 1-1 light -industrial, and 1-2 heavy industrial districts.
Steve Grittman spoke about the regulatory standards for each use category; including
the buffer, aspects of outdoor storage, managing odor, and requirements of general
standards of building codes and standards of the zoning district. A separate table of
cannabis uses has been prepared including permitted, conditionally permitted and not
allowed. Zoning districts other than B-3, B-4 and 1-1 and 1-2 were not included as they
are adjacent to residential neighborhoods, except for the very limited lower -potency
hemp retailers as B-2 uses.
Steve Grittman reminded policymakers on the 30-day timeline to respond to a cannabis
license application for the location within Monticello. The state Office of Cannabis
Management will notify the City. The city would utilize our existing processes if a
conditional use permit is required.
2
Steve Grittman gave an overview of microbusiness and mezzobusiness, as defined by
the size of the building nd allowable activities. Their allowable business endorsements
are intertwined and both can request a retail endorsement. Staff is proposing for
discussion that the retailing component would need to be located in B-3 or B-4, and the
cultivation and the production industrial element would be in the 1-1 (light industrial) or
1-2 (heavy Industrial). The intent is to separate uses, even if a single business entity is the
same applicant. The rationale is related both to reducing buffer conflicts, reduce retail
trips within industrial districts and to congregate trips from the user for retail purposes.
Lee Martie asked if they would still be considered one licensee, even with two locations.
Steve Grittman confirmed.
Charlotte Gabler asked if these businesses would be eligible to applyfor a PUD, if the
applicant did not see a fit in the 1-1, 1-2 or B-3, B-4 districts. Steve Grittman stated that
they write a custom zoning district for the individual project, and as a rezoning action
that decision would be at the discretion of the City. Andrew Tapper stated a possible
PUD consideration scenario would be a combination retail and industrial cannabis use in
Otter Creek.
Angela Schumann noted that regulations prohibit operation of a cannabis business in
residential zoning districts. Steve Grittman confirmed that and stated a Home
Occupation Permit would not be an appropriate licensee.
Angela Schumann asked the City Attorney's office if there would be a way to prohibit
the use of PUD for cannabis businesses. The City Attorneys office stated his
recommendation that the City could not adopt an ordinance prohibiting a future Council
from adopting an ordinance that has not been established yet.
Steve Grittman reviewed the draft Cannabis Business Use table noting that is similar to
the existing zoning use table, with permitted uses, conditional uses and prohibition.
Consistent with the proposed text language, the retailers are in the B-3 and B-4 districts
and industrial uses are located within the 1-1 and 1-2 districts within the table. Cannabis
Events are treated as administrative permits in B-3 and B-4 and he stated that low -
potency hemp is identified in the B-2, B-3, and B-4 districts. He continued throughThe
delivery service for the retail delivery of the product is proposed in the B-3, and B-4 with
a Conditional Use Permit.
Andrew Tapper asked for the rationale for excluding the Central Community District
(CCD). Angela Schumann stated CCD and Pointes District have residential components
and may be excluded because of that aspect, along with parks and other buffers.
3
Charlotte Gabler asked about drive-throughs. Steve Grittman indicated that a drive -
through would be prohibited both in ordinance and by statute and deferred to the City
Attorney's office for clarification.
Paul Konsor asked if the regulatory requirements for allowing businesses was coming
from the State or Wright County. Angela Schumann clarified that it is per the statute
that that we can regulate, we cannot prohibit. Steve Grittman echoed this and further
that the prohibition cannot be done with buffers.
Paul Konsor asked if it is feasible to manage odor control in the manufacturing district
and its spillover into residential areas or area roadways. Steve Grittman stated there is
technology to scrub and filter odors and odors cannot cross the property line.
Angela Schumann reminded policymakers that the City cannot prohibit manufacturers
and only apply the registration cap for cannabis retailers.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the cannabis notification deadlines are separate from that of
the zoning 60-day rule. Steve Grittman confirmed that they are separate.
Angela Schumann stated the allowance for CUP was written with consultation with the
City Attorney's office , as the statute is less than specific on guidance.
Angela Schumann reminded policymakers of the buffer maximums in the statute,
including 1,000 feet from a school, 500 feet from a day care center, 500 feet from a
residential treatment facility and 500 feet from a park amenity where minors may
congregate. She reminded policymakers that they can reduce the buffer distancing, yet
may not exceed state statute maximums.
Angela Schumann gave an overview of the planning department's recommendation
regarding the park buffer and that of the city attorney's office. The planning department
is recommending all parks be included as it is difficult to distinguish between where
minors would not congregate. The city attorney's office is narrowing the scope in their
interpretation of the statute and only looking for parks with park attractions where
minors would congregate.
Angela Schumann shared how staff prepared maps for both scenarios and in either
scenario of the interpretation that there is a minimum of 25% of the parcels available in
the allowable zoning districts for cannabis business operations. Angela Schumann
reminded policymakers that they do not need make sure these parcels are available for
lease or sale, simply that they are allowed for use.
It was shared that legal challenges could present themselves if one believes the city has
over -buffered themselves greater than statute's intention. Steve Grittman illustrated
M
the vagueness of the statute and the likelihood there would be updates to the statute
from the state.
Teri Lehner asked if a park receives a new amenity, whether it would drive out the
cannabis business. Steve Grittman stated the City would not be able to prohibit the
existing businesses, yet a new buffer would be created with annual review.
Paul Konsor asked if the ordinance would only relate to public parks. Steve Grittman
stated only public parks are subject to the buffer.
Paul Konsor asked about county enforcement procedures. Angela Schumann stated that
the county is taking a broader approach to regulation and noted that staff have reached
out to the Wright County Sherriffs Office and the Monticello School District. In prior
initial discussion, the district seemed to lean towards maximum buffers for schools.
Teri Lehner spoke about the desire to take the conservative approach and open up
slowly, versus having to try and close the door later.
Paul Konsor gave support to the maximum buffer for schools.
Rob Stark supported the maximum buffer for schools. This was echoed by Melissa
Robeck for a maximum for schools and daycare.
Angela Schumann reminded the boards that residential home day cares are included in
the buffer. Andrew Tapper stated that the home day care has the least effect and could
be redundant as the majority of the day cares are located in a residential
neighborhoods, which already would not allow for cannabis businesses.
Sam Murdoff spoke about the Goddard School being approved and yet is unbuilt, if this
was built it would exclude nearby properties such as the movie theatre.
Paul Konsor asked if the City could make a choice to add one buffer to day care centers
and home day cares. Angela Schumann asked the City Attorney's office if regulation for
day cares in B-3, B-4 and day cares in residential areas could be buffered separately.
Jack Brooksbank confirmed.
Andrew Tapper spoke about the desire to not limit future development of day cares
with the proposed language.
Tracy Hinz asked for clarification on the discussion points for the evening. Angela
Schumann responded that staff is looking for feedback on the buffers, the zoning
districts allowances and whether micro and mezzo retail businesses should be allowed
to include retail within the industrial districts or to keep uses in the retail districts.
Charlotte Gabler asked if a conditional use could be used for the accessory portion of
micro and mezzo businesses' retail component in industrial districts. Staff confirmed.
Andrew Tapper concurred that it is easier to open up the allowable uses slowly, versus
having to backtrack later.
Sam Murdoff explained that it is important for the City to evaluate its overall position on
whether it wants cannabis businesses to locate in Monticello, or whether it wishes to
take a more restrictive approach. If it wants to allow businesses, then where those
businesses are allowed would be more broadly written into ordinance.
Angela Schumann stated that Wright County now indicated that they will allow the City
to exceed the 2 retail registration regardless of how many registrations are in the
county, and exceeding 2 retail registrations would not remove Monticello from the
Joint -Powers Agreement (JPA) as discussed in the prior workshop.
Rob Stark agreed with a more measured approach versus a an initial `free-for-all'.
Angela Schumann spoke about how staff plans to continue conversations and open
dialogue with Office of Cannabis Management and local law enforcement. Local law
enforcement could be asked to give a report specifically regarding cannabis businesses
to share with the planning commission.
Teri Lehner asked about inquiries from cannabis businesses for Monticello and
surrounding communities.
Angela Schumann stated that based on a recent Star Tribune article it appears that
Monticello has one inquiry for a cannabis business license with OCM..
Paul Konsor asked if medical cannabis is treated differently for tonight's discussion.
Angela Schumann concurred based on the attorney's presented information for medical
cannabis registration and that these have a specific designation in the table.
Lee Martie summarized feedback from the evening's workshop that policymakers
wanted to keep the 1000' school buffer, 500' buffer from amenities used by minors
within the parks consistent with the city attorney's recommendation, zero -in on
daycares buffers, and for the 1-1 and 1 -2 districts to prohibit retail at this time.
Jack Brooksbank spoke to the difficulty of the language interpretation for attractions for
minors versus attractions in general regarding the outer edge measurement for the
attraction. He also spoke in regard to the day care buffers that the city should have a
rationale for that approach.
Andrew Tapper proposed language to state that the day care buffer applies in districts
where cannabis is not allowed, yet a district where the cannabis is allowed then no
buffer, such as B-3, B-4.
Angela Schumann reviewed the concluding item of the evening, Cannabis Events.
I
Steve Grittman gave an overview of cannabis events and as recommended, they would
need to be located in a B-31 or B-4 district on a non -buffered site. Consumption at
events, would be limited based on other regulations, , yet would allow for consumption
of edibles and informational handouts.
Angela Schumann asked if policymakers would like to allow cannabis events on publicly -
owned property.
Tracy Hinz asked if the City was required to allow cannabis events.
Steve Grittman stated the statute states that cities must allow the events, and up to 4
consecutive days.
Jack Brooksbank stated that cannabis samples are not allowed per State Statute.
Angela Schumann stated that a property that is vacant in the B-3 or B-4 could be
allowed for cannabis events, granted all other conditions are met.
The general consensus from policymakers was not to prohibit publicly -owned properties
at this time.
Angela Schumann gave an overview of the next steps, regarding publication of the
public hearing and posting with planning commission review on November 4, with
council review on November 25 pending Planning Commission recommendation, with a
study document in place with the research from the interim ordinance.
3. Adiournment by consensus
Recorded By: Tyler Bevier
Date Approved: November 4, 2024
ATTEST:
Angela Schuma rh'1_C_6*munity Development Director
7